Is 200L/2 totally inferior to the 70-200/4 ?

Jman13 wrote in post #7093593
It's simply amazing to me how few people can pick up on sarcasm. Ummm...the first post was a joke...check your funny bone people.

right lol?:p geez

I'm going back to the FM forums....

BrianMC wrote in post #7093629
I'm going back to the FM forums....

That was sarcasm btw

BrianMC wrote in post #7093241
I agree, lets get onto something more useful......

Such as answering the question, "I have the kit lens. What's the next lens I should buy?"

Or, "Which is better, the Nikon D700 or the 5DII?"

Rick "thinking this sarcasm thing is fun" Denney

I hope option one wins - in real life too. Voted.

I think the 200f2 is well over priced when ins nearly £1000 more than the 300f2.8.

CheshireCat wrote in post #7093148
Fellows, don't you think that the 200/2 IS is totally inferior to the 70-200/4 IS ?
If you don't, then think twice:

- As hard as you try, it will not zoom. I've tried different copies and all had this defect. Blame Canon QC.
- Has inferior f number 2 vs 4, so shots are less sharp overall wide-open.
- Three times the weight. Unbearable after the usual 8 hours of handheld duck-shooting.
- Too big. You may harm people at indoor parties, let alone it will obstruct flash coverage of your Rebel.
- MFD sucks. Forget macro coin shots.
- The IS of the 200/2 won't stop subject motion, while many 70-200/4 users will say their IS will.
- Just check the forums here. A billion of POTN users bought the 70-200/4 instead of the 200/2. They can't be all wrong !

Now this should be enough for Canon to swap the prices of the 200/2 and the 70-200/4... it's just a matter of time...

+1 LOL

CheshireCat wrote in post #7093148
Fellows, don't you think that the 200/2 IS is totally inferior to the 70-200/4 IS ?
If you don't, then think twice:

- As hard as you try, it will not zoom. I've tried different copies and all had this defect. Blame Canon QC.
- Has inferior f number 2 vs 4, so shots are less sharp overall wide-open.
- Three times the weight. Unbearable after the usual 8 hours of handheld duck-shooting.
- Too big. You may harm people at indoor parties, let alone it will obstruct flash coverage of your Rebel.
- MFD sucks. Forget macro coin shots.
- The IS of the 200/2 won't stop subject motion, while many 70-200/4 users will say their IS will.
- Just check the forums here. A billion of POTN users bought the 70-200/4 instead of the 200/2. They can't be all wrong !

Now this should be enough for Canon to swap the prices of the 200/2 and the 70-200/4... it's just a matter of time...

+1
It sucks like **** and should be a freebie with every camera body purchase!

pendulum15 wrote in post #7095633
+1
It sucks like **** and should be a freebie with every camera body purchase!

LOL Introducing the new Canon XS it comes with the 18-55mm and the 200mm f/.2L IS all for 599.99

Wishful thinking, but hey im in- lets swap those prices around i wouldnt mind a 200F2L for £700

Will someone please just post the date when this will happen, I'd like to buy the zoom one day earlier and sell it the following day.

See for yourself.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&SampleComp=0&F​LI=4&API=0

Like you mentioned, the 70-200mm f/4L IS is way sharper at 135mm.

FretNoMore wrote in post #7092434
Let's start a petition to get a lot of people to not recommend the 200/2. Maybe its reputation will become so bad that I then can pick one up at a silly low price.

Dude, I guess our plan is screwed..
I can't believe how the poll's going: most voters actually think the 200L/2 is a better lens !!
Damn you Canon marketing !

Way too many pros in here... how could I be so blind.. I should have known better.

Please keep on voting !

I voted for the first. We have too many people liking to spend way too much money.

this is quite a random thread!